Shattered
Lord of Utopia
Simple enough. Should we select our civilization, or should we leave it random?
This is a public poll. It will end in two days.
This is a public poll. It will end in two days.
Should we choose our civ, or leave it random?
- Thread starter Shattered
- Start date
Shattered
Lord of Utopia
I choose random. This is because the first election is to be based on traits, and if we are allowed to choose a nation, then it will lose flavor. With a random civ, we'll see a first term election based entirely off of the factions and their traits, not which traits go best with which civilization.
This poll is missing the option I want to vote for.
Allow each faction to choose a civ or leave the selection as random.
Isn't this much better for the faction system than forcing one or the other on every faction?
Allow each faction to choose a civ or leave the selection as random.
Isn't this much better for the faction system than forcing one or the other on every faction?
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
The faction system is built on only having the traits, not the entire civ, as up for election. You can choose your leader, but you cannot choose where you are born. Selecting a civ for a faction platform ruins that option. And by voting no to unrestricted and now this poll, plus nullifying my two initial polls (one by override and the other by deleting it entirely), you had 4 polls to vote over this DS.
"Select Civ" is the option you should vote for then DS, if "Select Civ" wins, we can have a poll if the selection would be by us collectively, or by the faction. However, right now, all we need to know, is how many wants to play a random civilization or not.
"Select Civ" is the option you should vote for then DS, if "Select Civ" wins, we can have a poll if the selection would be by us collectively, or by the faction. However, right now, all we need to know, is how many wants to play a random civilization or not.
I don't think there's anything wrong with selecting a civilization as well as a leader. In fact I could see the selection of a civilization as being important for RP purposes. In DG2 we had a random civilization and we ended up having Mongolia, this wasn't great for role playing because not much was known about this nation by the average DG player, and Mongolian names were neither familiar or easy to use.
I'd much prefer if we were able to select a civilization that we can more easily use the history and language of such as Germany, or France.
I'd much prefer if we were able to select a civilization that we can more easily use the history and language of such as Germany, or France.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
I think this is a beautiful opportunity to craft our own nation, with its own personality, nature and culture, for the first time in demogame history.
No, we are not crafting it. We are selecting traits but leaving the actual civ entirely to chance. Random choice has been used in several previous demogames.
The true "create our own civ" choice would have been to have each faction select traits and civ. Inexplicably, the driving forces behind customizing the game and providing a vibrant and hotly contested initial election have turned their backs on the chance to select the first prime faction based on a vision for how the role play would develop.
We're going to suck at role play if we get some civ that nobody has ever heard of. I have seen it before -- those few who are educated enough to have a clue jump in, and the rest just stand around dazed and confused. Some underlying structure is needed.
Look at previous demogames. Egypt and Japan gave fantastic role play. What characterizes these civs? They are ones that everyone knows about. Instead of spending effort on making up a civ from scratch, role players can start off with a known language, terms, and a feeling for how things should go. This does not stifle creativity, in any way. Freed from having to imagine their new civ from the ground up, role players in known civs can move directly to the creation of characters and story telling, which is where the real action is.
But I can see that my argument has been falling on deaf ears. I wonder if it is because I am saying it? What you might not know is that I have been role playing since the mid 70's and have seen many things, and I know without a doubt that a known framework is essential.
Anecdote: I was DM for several D&D games in '79-'82. One of my players read the "Thomas Covenant" series by Stephen R Donaldson and convinced me to start a game based on that structure despite none of the other players knowing anything about it. The game flopped in spectacular fashion. Why, when D&D itself is made up? Because the core D&D game is similar enough to "normal" legends of elves, dwarves, and magic that it was instantly recognizable as a framework. Sure, the specific character and gameplay rules needed to be learned, but the language was already there. The Covenant universe was so outside the norm that it did not provide a gameplay framework.
I guess there is no way to convince folks to stick to something known as a basis for the unknown. There is hope the game will work anyway, and I'll do what I can, but the danger signs are there.
The true "create our own civ" choice would have been to have each faction select traits and civ. Inexplicably, the driving forces behind customizing the game and providing a vibrant and hotly contested initial election have turned their backs on the chance to select the first prime faction based on a vision for how the role play would develop.
We're going to suck at role play if we get some civ that nobody has ever heard of. I have seen it before -- those few who are educated enough to have a clue jump in, and the rest just stand around dazed and confused. Some underlying structure is needed.
Look at previous demogames. Egypt and Japan gave fantastic role play. What characterizes these civs? They are ones that everyone knows about. Instead of spending effort on making up a civ from scratch, role players can start off with a known language, terms, and a feeling for how things should go. This does not stifle creativity, in any way. Freed from having to imagine their new civ from the ground up, role players in known civs can move directly to the creation of characters and story telling, which is where the real action is.
But I can see that my argument has been falling on deaf ears. I wonder if it is because I am saying it? What you might not know is that I have been role playing since the mid 70's and have seen many things, and I know without a doubt that a known framework is essential.
Anecdote: I was DM for several D&D games in '79-'82. One of my players read the "Thomas Covenant" series by Stephen R Donaldson and convinced me to start a game based on that structure despite none of the other players knowing anything about it. The game flopped in spectacular fashion. Why, when D&D itself is made up? Because the core D&D game is similar enough to "normal" legends of elves, dwarves, and magic that it was instantly recognizable as a framework. Sure, the specific character and gameplay rules needed to be learned, but the language was already there. The Covenant universe was so outside the norm that it did not provide a gameplay framework.
I guess there is no way to convince folks to stick to something known as a basis for the unknown. There is hope the game will work anyway, and I'll do what I can, but the danger signs are there.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
The idea is to let this be an election between factions, an entire civ choice would steal the thunder, as some traits go best with some civilizations, which again mean certain faction civics will be rewarded more than others, based on civ choice. The only way we can make this semi-fair, at least, as well as exciting, is to let the RNG decide which civ we gets. Then the campaign would be on the core vision for Term One alone, and the traits needed to build our nation for the long haul. An insight into future units and buildings would just be a crystal ball we do not need to make a good game.
What about using a random choice that only includes well-known civs?
Do you know anything about the Khmer, for example? How about the Native Americans? I'd be an expert on the Native Americans and would be able to write some really good text based on their culture, but might not be able to write a single word about the Khmer. But I would sacrifice NA as a choice if too many people know nothing about them.
To flop around, or not to flop around, that is the question. Ever seen a chicken with its head cut off? That's what we'll get if random gives us an unknown civ.
Do you know anything about the Khmer, for example? How about the Native Americans? I'd be an expert on the Native Americans and would be able to write some really good text based on their culture, but might not be able to write a single word about the Khmer. But I would sacrifice NA as a choice if too many people know nothing about them.
To flop around, or not to flop around, that is the question. Ever seen a chicken with its head cut off? That's what we'll get if random gives us an unknown civ.
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
You could make a sub-proposal that we semi-randomize the choice to only include European-based, Middle Eastern or Far East based civs,for example. I am crazy about history, and know a good amount of each civ, but I admit that the interest is not necessarily there for everyone.
You could propose that we semi-randomize it, by only selecting a civ from a European cultural family only, for example.
You could propose that we semi-randomize it, by only selecting a civ from a European cultural family only, for example.
We could accept suggestions, create a list, and hand-randomize using a method outside civ. We did that on something before, and it came out just fine. This would be an acceptable compromise to me, but there's the minor matter of this poll and its apparent result that we must be random.
I remain convinced that it would not be harmful, and in fact would be extremely beneficial, to allow a faction to choose either random or a specific civ, and I think this poll might have had a different outcome if it was phrased that way to begin with. If someone else chooses to remedy this situation (hint hint), I will support that move. This time I will refrain from personally engaging in a poll war. (though I claim the right to do so in the future if conditions warrant it
)
I remain convinced that it would not be harmful, and in fact would be extremely beneficial, to allow a faction to choose either random or a specific civ, and I think this poll might have had a different outcome if it was phrased that way to begin with. If someone else chooses to remedy this situation (hint hint), I will support that move. This time I will refrain from personally engaging in a poll war. (though I claim the right to do so in the future if conditions warrant it
)Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
We could accept suggestions, create a list, and hand-randomize using a method outside civ. We did that on something before, and it came out just fine. This would be an acceptable compromise to me, but there's the minor matter of this poll and its apparent result that we must be random.
I remain convinced that it would not be harmful, and in fact would be extremely beneficial, to allow a faction to choose either random or a specific civ, and I think this poll might have had a different outcome if it was phrased that way to begin with. If someone else chooses to remedy this situation (hint hint), I will support that move. This time I will refrain from personally engaging in a poll war. (though I claim the right to do so in the future if conditions warrant it
You are right about that we can make a sort of semi-compromise here, like the horsetrading we saw on the minimum member requirement. Since most of us are Europeans, descended from Europeans or are all heavily influenced by Europeans, and Civ was developed and marketed in a European cultured context, the Internet itself stemming from a European cultural context, we could argue that a European Basket of Nations would make sense.
We could restart all civs not belonging to the European or North-African civilizations with the Faction Leader, and we would be set. I safely assume everyone knows something about the North-African and European Civs, right?
And yes, there is no need to start a poll war now. You got your way with the unrestricted leader, random civ polls, where one was remade by you and the other disappeared from the forum and so on.
As you see, most of the polls I posted after the double-question minimum requirement poll of fame, had all been quite neutral and not contested. In general, I admit our side has been quite poor at utilizing the reformating of polls to get our will through or to apply the report button when found opportune to make a point.
Basically, we suck at the metagame intrigues, forum positioning, vote counting and in general spinning the game rules to our advantage. We are, however, a substantial proportion of dedicated gamers with a profound interest in the new and uncharted, and a willingness to make it more fun and narrative, and less game-technical, less meta-game political and less similar to numerous prior demogames. If we all get some breathing space in this experiment, I am sure the surplus energy to structure this game fine and get some interesting competitive elections and thrilling gameplay to make this the best demogame ever.
Oni of Chaos
The Barrel Roll Guy
Some Non-European civs should be thrown in too. . .
China, Japan, Ottomans, Arabian, US, and Aztec strike me as some good ideas.
In terms of European culture, Europe did major trade of goods and ideas with China (gunpowder/Silk Road) anyone? Japan wasn't really that big but Japan is fairly well known, Ottomans are a huge influence (they went up all the way into Hungary and were a force to be reckoned with for centuries), Arabians did some stuff (Spain for example, that would be some awesome RP if we were Arabians/Spanish and we had the opposite in the game and we declared war as soon as we found them), US *cough* *cough*, and Aztecs were conquered by the Spanish (again some good RP). Also, for most civs, for people who don't know about them, the Internet/Civilopedia ftw.
EDIT: Oh yeah, India too. Some civs, like the Khmer, I understand being thrown out as they are relatively obscure, but there were other well known civs besides Europe/North African civs.
EDIT #2: I like the compromise idea with the restarting. If we get the Khmer for example, we could poll and see if the Civ is ok knowledge wise, not "I don't like Jaguars" wise.
China, Japan, Ottomans, Arabian, US, and Aztec strike me as some good ideas.
In terms of European culture, Europe did major trade of goods and ideas with China (gunpowder/Silk Road) anyone? Japan wasn't really that big but Japan is fairly well known, Ottomans are a huge influence (they went up all the way into Hungary and were a force to be reckoned with for centuries), Arabians did some stuff (Spain for example, that would be some awesome RP if we were Arabians/Spanish and we had the opposite in the game and we declared war as soon as we found them), US *cough* *cough*, and Aztecs were conquered by the Spanish (again some good RP). Also, for most civs, for people who don't know about them, the Internet/Civilopedia ftw.
EDIT: Oh yeah, India too. Some civs, like the Khmer, I understand being thrown out as they are relatively obscure, but there were other well known civs besides Europe/North African civs.
EDIT #2: I like the compromise idea with the restarting. If we get the Khmer for example, we could poll and see if the Civ is ok knowledge wise, not "I don't like Jaguars" wise.
Restarting is prone to abuse. Instead, make a list. Use any available random number generator to pick a number between 1 and n. Start the game using that civ.
Oni of Chaos
The Barrel Roll Guy
That sounds better
My point still stands
Potential list (Suggestions for adding/removing civs?)
England
France
Spain
Portugal
Carthage
Rome
Germany
Vikings
Russia
Greeks
Byzantines
Egypt
Dutch
Ottomans
Arabians
Chinese
Japanese
Indians
United States
My point still stands
Potential list (Suggestions for adding/removing civs?)
England
France
Spain
Portugal
Carthage
Rome
Germany
Vikings
Russia
Greeks
Byzantines
Egypt
Dutch
Ottomans
Arabians
Chinese
Japanese
Indians
United States
Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
I say we just use the in-game Random feature, and take the random Civ as a blessing. The odds for getting a great known civ is quite high, and no need to discriminate certain civs. This is also a good opportunity to read up on that particular Civ. One of the reasons is that I want the game to start, so we should settle the result with this poll, and go on with the game proper (quite high odds for getting a known civ, so...)
croxis
Chat room op
Many of the lesser known civs have amazing cultures and histories -- do not forget the civpedia as well.
Oni of Chaos
The Barrel Roll Guy
(or will be this evening Provolution
Sage of Quatronia
Random Civ it is, with a large majority. No horsetrading and so on, we will play with the Civ given by the RNG Gods, and the ones wanting to know more about it, can read Civipedia or wikipedia.
Similar threads
